Earth

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
As long as standard changes in the universe apply: Yes. we shall gain mass. until we displace that mass in the form of satellites and shuttles/rockets/Star Ships...(think Enterprise.)

What we need to look at is the Moon...our Moon. how does mass change affect us?

When looking at evolution...don't just look at a small area of the picture...look as the whole gallery!
 



I was referring to how narrow minded some individuals are in the scientific community. Just because one thing happens does not mean that is the only thing that occurred. There is more to see that may explain what you are looking at...maybe the answers you are looking for will be revealed!

I also heard, read, and was taught that in the next (x) billion years, the sun will go Supernovae on us.

NOTE: The (x) is an arbitrary number not yet finalized; somewhere between 1-10 i assume.
 


That would be the Andromeda galaxy, but since a galaxy is something like 99.9999% space that is empty except for interstellar gas molecules every so often, there won't be any fireworks like stars smacking into each other. There would be a fairly good possibility of the Oort cloud of comets and proto-planets getting disturbed by a passing star or two, which would mean lots of comets bombarding the inner planets, however. But hopefully in 2 billion years or so, we all would have learned to get along with each other and thus develop a planet-wide errant comet detection and deflection system..
 


Was just about to say Andromeda, +1 on that!

For a very interesting simulation of our galaxy is readily available and pretty cheap if you compare it with similar pieces of software (although this is more aimed at gamers):

http://universesandbox.com/


Just watch the quick video on their homepage, it's great!
 
The universe is still expanding. They can trace back all known stars to a central location which provides the theory for the "Big Bang." Oddly enough, that's as far as astromoners and scientists can take it. This is also where portions of the Bible is claimed to begin.

Today's astrophysics and the Bible both come to the exact same conclusion. The Big Bang theory. That is a bit freaky. Information on the subject can be found by research Reva Williams, the author of the Penrose Theory.
 
The 'Big Bang' was actually a rapid expansion of then generates mass as defined for its time. Basically, light was being emitted form the 'center' of the 'explosion'

Where in the Bible is there a source referring to the mass expansion of electromagnetic energy in space?
 
According to Reva Williams, they are only able to trace the universe back to the central location where the initial big bang occurred. Everything is expanding from that point. At that point there the light disappears that they use to calculate various astrophyic 'stuff.'

This has only been truly discovered in our life time essentially. The Bible is much older. Reva is religious and became an astrophysist to prove that God exists. I must point that part out as I am only pointing out her argument as she relayed it to me.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

This, according to her and her personal belief, is the start of the Big Bang. She, being the subject matter expert in astrophysics, can say better than anyone else, that the scientific community agrees that everything, including light, all started, to the best of their knowledge and abilities in the subject, at a single point. Prior to that event they are unable to find any other form or sources of light.

Given that information in the way she relays it and in her context, you gotta admit that it is pretty significant and intriguing.
 
Are you sure that the bible gives proofs of the big bang or is that what you would like it to say? This is a tricky road because if we start taking the bible literally then we have to take the other things the bible says literally.
 
Uh, no? I'm not taking it literally. I thought the idea was God was too great for man to understand and as another person, dictating through God, wrote their share of the Bible to relay to man. God didn't write the Bible. Man wrote the Bible, supposedly through God, in a way that man could understand it.

"God said it would be, so it would be" type thing. They were not in a position to question it.

That being said, do you question that the sky exists? Or that there is 'light' and 'dark' and that birds fly in the sky?
 
Light exists technically dark is just the absence of visible light. Birds fly in the sky not because it was made so but through millions of years of evolution. Why would god be so specific with the details of nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity but so vague with the life he created. And then just kinda stopped hanging out with us.
 


Where is he specific about any of that stuff? It basically states it is what it is. Again, we are not as significant as we think we are.

Because the book states that there was then light.. is not different than stating that a bird flies. There is no time frame within the Bible of 'God's work.'
 
Since this is a religion thread let me ask some questions. Ill try to be as polite as possible and sensitive, but you know where I stand.

Different translations of the Bible, something like over 200 currently. Are these accurate? We have translated Latin into multiple forms of English, Greek, Hebrew. The bible that Jesus immediate followers would have preached could be very different from what we read today. Especially once we get into nuances. The Dead Sea scrolls "Supposedly" have some Bible extras, stories that weren't told or were combined names changed etc does this affect accuracy?

What about those really odd rules in the bible? I think there is a stipulation saying if you are male and your genitals are not intact then you cant be admitted to heaven. Or your obligation to throw stones at adulterers. Is this a breakdown in translation or would God seriously be pissed if you didn't follow some bizarre rules?

 
Mostly its accurate.
The words used were words that fit in any sentence, but are intechangeable, tho the sentence is still the same.

Id like to see the King James omissions

We can also mean, as accepted by the church, and dont know how the Jews explain this, is the trinity
 


"And God said, Let There Be Light!" or something similar.. In the book of Genesis, and rather appropriately, near the beginning 😀..

Actually physics can only trace the big bang back to something like 10^-43 seconds, where time itself began and the universe was maybe the size of a basketball or softball, I forget which. Then around 10 eons later, 10^-33 seconds or so, gravity separated out from the other 3 forces and the universe expanded exponentially to something like 10^1000 times, spacetime carrying along with it all the original matter in the universe but then adding in a huge amount more as matter 'condensed' out of the energy released by the expansion.

So, it makes no sense to talk about a time before the Big Bang, since time itself did not exist. So the universe prior to the BB was "without form" as also described in Genesis..

However it does make sense to talk about the end of the universe. Prior to the discovery of dark energy (the force many scientists postulate as causing the acceleration of matter away from itself, sorta like the inflationary epoch but in slo-mo), cosmologists thought there wasn't enough matter (both visible and dark) to keep the universe from expanding forever. Dark energy just speeds up the timetable. Anyway, before the last red dwarfs wink out and the "Light" is extinguished forever, some future descendant of humanity would only see our galaxy, or a portion thereof, in the night sky. Everything else would have receded over the cosmological event horizon, lost forever. After that, even galactic-sized black holes would evaporate, providing brief sparks in the otherwise perpetual darkness. If the proton is unstable as some theorize, then maybe it too would eventually evaporate into quarks, in about 10^150 years from now. So all that would be left would be a thin quark soup and the universe would be at maximum entropy. More importantly, all information (history) would be gone as well, so if you believe you have an immortal soul consisting of your 'essence' or the sum total of information about you & your life, it won't be found in this universe..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom